Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court

High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Expert Committee's Opinion on Revised Answer Key

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 29, 2023: In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal challenging the opinion of an expert committee regarding the revised answer key for a recruitment examination conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The appellant, Monu, had filed the appeal after his writ petition was dismissed by the court.

The appellant had applied for the position of Clerk in response to an advertisement issued by the HSSC in 2015. After appearing in the written examination in 2016 and securing 152 marks, the appellant was called for an interview. However, due to a query raised by another candidate regarding the correctness of an answer in the model answer key, the expert committee reviewed the matter and revised the answer key. Consequently, the appellant was not appointed to the position.

The appellant obtained the revised answer key through the Right to Information Act, 2005, and challenged the correctness of the answer to the disputed question. However, his efforts with the HSSC did not yield any result, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The Single Judge, after examining the matter and considering the respondent's response, held that the court cannot question the correctness of the expert committee's opinion. The Single Judge further noted that the change in the answer applied to all candidates and that the appellant had approached the court after a significant delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Shanker Jha (Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli, upheld the decision of the Single Judge. The Division Bench referred to Supreme Court precedents that emphasized that once a matter has been examined by experts, the court is not required to question the correctness of their opinion. In this case, an expert committee had examined the correctness of the disputed answer and revised the answer key accordingly.

Considering the timeline of events, the Division Bench concluded that taking up the issue at this stage would not serve any meaningful purpose. The advertisement was issued in 2015, the examination was held in 2016, the result was published in 2017, and the revised result was declared in 2018, with selections from the select list already made.

The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of by the court.

Date of decision : 25.05.2023

Monu vs Haryana Staff Selection Commissio

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/25-May-2023-Monu-vs-Haryana-Staff-Selc-P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News